Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

“Bail Denied to Accused Allegedly Running Jihadi WhatsApp Group: Allahabad Court Cites Gravity of Allegations”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judicial decision, the Hon’ble Pankaj Bhatia, J., presiding over Court No. 75, rejected the bail application of an accused in a case involving allegations of running a WhatsApp group that spread jihadi literature and videos. The applicant, identified as Inamul Haq alias Inamul Imtiyaz, was charged with being the administrator of the group and promoting anti-India sentiments.

The FIR lodged against Inamul Haq revealed disturbing allegations. The applicant was alleged to have formed a WhatsApp group that disseminated literature classified as jihadi, along with sharing videos promoting extremist ideologies. The applicant was reportedly the administrator of the group and even admitted to aspiring to become a “jihadi.” The FIR also mentioned that Inamul Haq was associated with a group known as “Lashkar,” and that he had been operating a WhatsApp group for a significant duration.

The prosecution argued that the applicant’s involvement went beyond merely spreading literature. It was alleged that the WhatsApp group actively facilitated the acquisition of weapons, further escalating the gravity of the charges. The group was purportedly responsible for enticing individuals to join its ranks.

The court’s observation stressed the seriousness of the allegations and the potential threat posed to public order. Citing the relevant legal provisions, including Section 121-A of the Indian Penal Code, the court highlighted the offense of conspiring to overawe the Central or State Government through criminal force. While acknowledging the right to practice and propagate religion as guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution, the court noted that the nature of the allegations indicated the potential conspiracy to commit a serious offense.

In light of the gravity of the allegations and the potential risk to public order, the court concluded that no case for granting bail was established. Consequently, the bail application was rejected.

This decision serves as a reminder of the delicate balance between religious freedoms and potential threats to national security. The court’s emphasis on the seriousness of the allegations underscores the need to ensure public order while safeguarding fundamental rights.

The rejection of the bail application sends a strong message about the court’s commitment to upholding the law and maintaining public safety in cases that involve potential conspiracy and promotion of extremist ideologies.

Date of Decision: 9.8.2023

Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz  vs State of U.P.   

Latest Legal News